Shri. VISHWAS MORE Chinchkhed Road, Pimpalgaon ...
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Shri. VISHWAS MORE Chinchkhed Road, Pimpalgaon ...
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 1 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
(WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE
M.A.No.5 of 2015
APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2014
CORAM:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR
(Judicial Member)
HON’BLE DR. AJAY A.DESHPANDE
(Expert Member)
B E T W E E N:
Shri. VISHWAS MORE Chinchkhed Road, Pimpalgaon Baswant, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik-422209.
………APPLICANT
A N D
1. Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samitee, Pimpalgaon Bswant,
Taluka Niphad, District Nashik-422209. Person Diliprao Shankarrao Banker, Sabhapati, Phone: 02550-250768,251223/253232 T/Fax: 02550-253232 Email: [email protected]
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India (MoEF) CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA),
C/o Secretary Environment, Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Room No.217, (Annexe) Mantralaya,
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 2 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai400032.
4. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA),
C/o Secretary Environment, Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Room No.217, (Annexe) Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai400032. 5. The Secretary Environment,
Govt. of Maharashtra Room No.217, (Annexe) Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai400032.
6. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
Kalptaru Point, 3rd Floor, Opp. Cineplanet, Sion East, Mumbai-400 022. ………Respondents
Counsel for Applicant(s): Mr. R.B.Mahabal Advocate a/w Shrilekha Golekar Advocate, Mr. A.P. Akut Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr. Shivraj P. Kadam Advocate a/w T.B.Godbole Advocate for
Respondent No.1. Mr.D.M.Gupte/Supriya Dangre, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No.6.
Date: March 18th, 2015
J U D G M E N T
1. By this Application, Applicant Mr. Vishwas More
raises certain issues pertaining to Sewage Treatment Plant
(STP) to deal with sewage on account of use of sheds by
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 3 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
large number of stockiest/farmers for storage, sale and
auctioning of Tomatoes in the area of market yard of
Respondent No.1 – Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti,
Pimpalgaon Basvant, as well as absence of arrangements
for shifting of sewage without proper arrangement,
allowing it to another nearby farms, causing damage to the
land, crops, contamination of groundwater, well water and
other environmental adverse impacts. Claim put forth by
him, is that construction of premises, shelters so called
temporary sheds erected by means of pipes attached to the
pipe framework in the market yard area, are considered
construction work excessive of 20,000sq.mtrs area and,
therefore, approval of competent authority, as per MoEF
Notification dated 14th September, 2006, as amended on
4.4.2011, is essential, which the Respondent No.1 desires
to bypass.
2. By this Application, the applicant has raised
various environmental issues of substantial nature, mainly
relating to activities of the farmers, visa-a-visa market
yard. The market yard in each city, town or metro city, is
mainly for the traders dealing in trading of grains, pulses
and other edibles like dry-fruits etc. Market yard in the
rural areas, however, are of different kinds, because they
are required to deal with agricultural produce like Onions,
Tomato, Grapes, Food-grains, apart from grains, pulses
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 4 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
etc. In other words, market yard in rural areas deal
activity, one in trading of dry type of agricultural produce
or edibles, including dry-fruits etc. and another in
vegetables, eatables/fruits, which require sale activity
without spending much time. Otherwise, such vegetables,
fruits or agricultural produce like Grapes or Tomatoes,
may not be of any use to the vendors or the buyers.
3. Pimpagaon-Basvant is one of such a big market
yard in Nashik district. It has been constructed over about
100acres of land by Pimpalgaon joint farming society.
Undisputedly, the market yard started operation in
somewhere in the midst of September, 2013. A large
number of farmers from many places of Nashik district
visit the market yard for sale of their agricultural produce
like Onions, Tomatoes, Grapes, and vegetables so on and
so forth. Approximately, 300-400 trucks are loaded or
unloaded within the premises of the market yard for such
trading activity. There is no dispute about the fact that
large number of farmers are required to stay overnight
within premises of the market yard, awaiting their
transactions to be completed. The market yard has
constructed 25 sheds for shelter of such agriculturist’s
need for overnight stay in the premises.
4. It is case of the Applicant that around
1, 750,000 to 2,500,000 liters of water is regularly used
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 5 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
within premises, including 25 permanent sheds used by
the agriculturists. Untreated sewage is let out without any
defined channel trained surface or proper system of closed
gutters. There is no STP for treating sewage and, therefore,
untreated sewage is drifted towards Zopul road and enters
into nearby agricultural lands in uncontrolled manner
until it reaches ‘Kadva’ River. Consequently, agricultural
lands are contaminated with sewage water, damaging farm
lands, sensitive crops, resulting into loss of fertility and
actual production of crops.
5. Environmental problem is further enhanced,
because the Market Committee has allowed traders to have
permanent construction of sheds annexed to their
shops/premises for storage of stock received for sale. The
storage of Tomatoes, Grapes, and Onions during relevant
season necessitates more people to visit the market yard,
which adds to more sewage, which remains untreated. The
market yard has not obtained Environmental Clearance
(EC) from the State Environmental Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA), notwithstanding the fact that
construction is over and above 20,000sq.mtrs and falls
within the category of entry No. 8(a) of the EIA Notification
dated 14th September, 2006. The pollution within market
yard is ever growing problem with addition of seasonal
vegetables, stock of Tomatoes, Onions and other likewise
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 6 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
agricultural products, which are stocked or kept for sale,
may be for auctioning purpose, in the sheds, which are
erected by means of iron pipes or Bamboos, annexed with
vending places of grain vendors/licensees of the market
yard. There are no adequate STPs, adequate arrangements
for underground channels of sewage for clearance of
sewage generated at the sites. The sewage generation
capacity per day, is not considered by the Market
Committee and only two (2) small STPs, one within the
premises of market yard and one at the residential building
for shelter of the agriculturists, are mostly inadequate to
take care of thousands of people/agriculturists, who are
compelled to use open places for answering call of nature
of easing themselves or discharging morning affairs. The
generation of such filth gives foul smell in the area, is
harmful and causes adverse impact on the quality of crops
available to the Applicant and nearby agriculturists. The
market yard has not made any arrangements for
composting of rotten fruits/vegetables and as such,
pollution is spread out without any control.
6. Considering above aspects, the Applicant has
prayed for following reliefs:
A. Immediately stop operations of the Respondent No.1
till effective STP is provided along with proper drainage
arrangement (or if they have been already stopped
operations, then maintain the status quo)
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 7 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
B. Immediately stop operation of the Respondent No.1 till
‘Environmental Clearance’ is applied and obtained
under category 8(a) or as applicable, after following
due process of law (or if they have been already
stopped operations, then maintain the status quo).
C. Appoint an expert or Expert Committee to assess the
damage to crop, groundwater, well water, farms and
farmland.
D. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to take
appropriate action to forthwith ensure the compliance
in respect of providing STP and proper drainage
system.
E. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to take
appropriate action for the violations of the provisions of
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
F. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to take
appropriate steps to restore the damage to
environment.
G. Pay applicant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards
environmental testing required to be done and
expenses of litigation forced on it.
H. Pay relief and compensatin as may be determined by
the expert committee for the damage to crop, farm,
farmland and contamination of groundwater and well
water.
I. Pay relief and compensation as may be determined by
the expert committee for restitution of environment.
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 8 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
7. Respondent No.1 – Agricultural Produce Market
Committee (APMC), resisted the Application on various
grounds. Chief bone of contention raised by Respondent
No.1, is that temporary shades situated in the premises of
APMC, pertain to necessary activities of unloading,
branding and packaging of the agricultural products of
Tomatoes during season of Tomato crop between June to
December of each year. For such purpose, agents of
traders erected temporary shelters/sheds with
wooden/Bamboo support, covered by zinc sheets. Their
intention is to protect the vegetables brought by the
agriculturists to the market yard. The temporary sheds are
required for benefit of the agriculturists during harvesting
season. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee
(APMC), has acquired approximately 800 acres of land and
has planned to develop big APMC activity for benefit of the
farmers. The auction place of agricultural products of
APMC was previously about 2km. away from Pimpalgaon
city on Mumbai-Agra, National Highway No.3. For benefit
of the farmers, APMC shifted auctioning yard to inner side
of the Highway on Jopul road, at a distance of 1 km. away
from Pimpalgaon city. Somewhere in 2007, APMC, has
purchased about 800 Acres land from joint Farming
Society, Pimpalgaon. It has shifted certain activities to new
Zopul road market yard in August, 2013. APMC has
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 9 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
provided necessary facilities to the agriculturists, traders,
labours in the new area of market yard, situated at Jopul
road yard premises, which give better facilities and allow
the farmers to get better prices for agricultural products.
8. According to Respondent No.1, the Applicant
alleged contamination of his well water and made certain
grievances on account of political rivalry and ill-intention.
The Applicant filed Writ Petition No.11221 of 2013, only
regarding effluent, untreated running from toilet blocks,
which allegedly contaminated water, but now, in this
Application, he has also added certain other issues with
ulterior motive to bring about more colour to give the
Application, in addition to what he narrated in the Writ
Petition. He had also filed a complaint before the
Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority
(MWRRA), with same grievances. The requirement of
MWRRA, regarding installation of Sewage Treatment Plant
(STP), was complied with by Respondent No.1 and,
therefore, the complaint of the Applicant was disposed of.
9. The construction area within Jopul road yard is
only of 18746.36sq.mtrs, as per sanction order issued by
Pimpalgaon Baswant Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it is
contended by Respondent No.1, that there is no need to
seek Environmental Clearance from the competent
Authority, because construction area does not cross outer
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 10 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
limit of 20,000sq.mtrs. It is alleged that mere putting of
temporary sheds during season of Tomato, Grapes will not
attract entry No. 8(a) or 8(b), Schedule 8 of EIA Notification
dated 14th September, 2006, and as such, the activity is
within legal framework of the Environmental Laws.
Consequently, the Respondent No.1, denied need for
requirement of any EC from the competent Authority.
Secondly, it is contended that built-up area, means the
area covered immediately above the plinth level by the
building of external area of any upper floor, whichever is
more, accepting the area cover of Rule 15.4.2 of the
Development Control Rules (DCR). The APMC has not done
any work in DCR. The Allottees of vacant areas i.e. the
Traders/Commission Agents, installed temporary
shelters/sheds with support of Bamboo/iron pipes,
covered by zinc sheets for protection of crop of Tomatoes,
to protect the interest of farmers, which activity is not
undertaken by the APMC (Respondent No.1), and as such,
it cannot be said that the Respondent No.1, has carried out
any construction beyond 20,000sq.mtrs. It is denied that
the Respondent No.1, has failed to provide required STPs
and toilet facilities in the premises of market yard. It is also
denied that untreated sewage is allowed to run without
control in the nearby lands, which has caused
environmental damage to the lands and, as such, fertility
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 11 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
of the lands is adversely affected. It is denied by the
Respondent No.1 that the drainage facility in the market
yard is uncovered, insufficient and unprotected. Therefore,
environmental adverse impact is resulted in the nearby
areas. It is denied that the Applicant suffered loss of crops
due to illegal acts of Respondent No.1- Krishi Utpanna
Bazar Samiti, Pimpalgaon Baswant (APMC).
10. Respondent No. 6, filed affidavits of their officer
from MPCB, at Nashik. The affidavit filed by Mr. Ankush
Fulse, Regional Officer of MPCB, purports to show that on
10th June, 2014, the site was visited by him. This visit was
after filing of the present Application in this Tribunal. At
the relevant time, it was found that there was no discharge
of uncontrolled water from the premises of Respondent
No.1, and one STP, was installed for wastewater treatment
within the premises. The complaint of Applicant was
investigated by the team of MPCB. It was found that
common STP for collection and treatment of domestic
effluent generated from project, was recently installed, one
more STP was proposed by Respondent No.1 and such
work was in progress. However, no direct discharge of
wastewater was observed outside the construction area.
Well water of the Applicant was found to be contaminated
due to previous discharge by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
There is something illogical or amiss about such statement
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 12 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
of Mr. Ankush Fulse, in his affidavit. How previous
discharge was found to be cause of contamination, is
rather unknown and not a convincing factor.
11. Affidavit of Mr. Vinayak Shinde, yet another
Regional Officer of MPCB, shows that STP, is installed for
collection and treatment of domestic effluent generated
from the project facility of Respondent No.1 and one more
STP, is proposed by Respondent No.1, of which work was
in progress. His affidavit is identical to the affidavit of Mr.
Ankush Fulse. His affidavit shows that on 5.9.2014,
trading activity of Tomatoes was in operation and at that
time two (2) STPs were operational. His affidavit further
shows that no discharge of treated or untreated domestic
water was observed, going outside the premises of
Respondent No.1. The Inspection Reports are also filed by
MPCB. The Inspection Reports go to show that COD value
of the samples collected of well water of the Applicant, was
very high, because it was 308 and 372 during the two (2)
visits.
12. The points which arise for determination are as
follows:
i) Whether the project activity, inclusive of temporary
sheds require any EC, in view of entry No.8 (a) of
Schedule 8, appended to EIA Notification dated 14th
September, 2006, or amended thereafter in 2011,
because it has to be included as ‘covered area’, due to
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 13 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
putting up of the sheds, covered by roofs of zinc sheets
alongside the main shops/market premises, allotted to
traders and total side area is over and above
20,000sq.mtrs, if considered together?
ii) Whether Respondent No.1, has failed to install required
number of STPs and thereby caused adverse
environmental adverse effect in the premises of APMC
(Respondent No.1), with the result that surrounding
area and agricultural lands in the vicinity, as well as
water in the wells of nearby areas are adversely
affected?
iii) Whether Respondent No.1, discharged untreated
water/effluents in the land of Applicant, which
contaminated his well water and thereby caused loss to
his agricultural crops? If yes, to what extent?
iv) What precautionary measures, are necessary to be
taken by Respondent No.1 for appropriate and
effectively manage affairs of the market yard in the area
where auctions are held, large number of agriculturists
come for night-stay, there is inadequacy of toilets, huge
quantity of Tomatoes or like vegetables/fruits etc.are
brought for sale, for auctioning process and there is
pulp of thrown or unuseful or rotten Tomatoes drifted to
some extent?
Re: Issue (i) :
13. The Applicant has raised above issue, in order to
show that entire activity carried out by the Respondent
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 14 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
No.1, is illegal for want of appropriate EC, required under
the EIA Notification, issued by MoEF, on 14th September,
2006. It is worthy to note that no such averment was made
in the Writ Petition No.11221 of 2013, which was filed
before the Hon’ble High Court. The prayers in the said Writ
Petition also do not show that the activities of Respondent
No.1, were challenged on the ground of violation of
Regulations provided under the EIA Notification dated 14th
September, 2006. The pleadings of Applicant in that Writ
Petition do not show that temporary sheds are the part and
parcel of shops given to the traders of APMC. Perusal of the
pleadings in the said Writ Petition clearly indicate that the
Applicant mainly relied upon inadequacy of essential
facilities like toilets, STPs, contamination of water and
health hazard, caused due to pollution on account of
uncontrolled waste management of Respondent No.1.
Obviously, it was never the case of Applicant that
temporary structures erected with the help of Bamboos for
protection of agricultural produce of Tomato/Grapes etc.
ought to have been taken into consideration for conducting
EIA study and EC was necessary for Respondent No.1,
under entry No.8 (a) and 8(b) of Schedule 8, appended to
EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006. It goes
without saying that the Applicant has now, invented a new
ground while filing the present Application, in this context.
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 15 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
The plea which was given up previously ought to be held
as abandoned, in view of the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the Applicant
could have taken such a plea in the earlier proceedings to
which he failed to do so and did not explain as to why no
such plea was taken in the course of such proceedings. A
copy of the Writ Petition No.11221 of 2013, purports to
show that he was aware of the fact that temporary
arrangement, which could be erected by means of Bamboo
or sticks, could be demolished at any time and cannot be
treated as “construction activity”. Therefore, he avoided to
raise such plea in the earlier pleadings and, as such, now
he cannot be permitted to say that by addition of
temporary sheds of Bamboo in the proximity of vending
places, used for protection of vegetables/fruits brought in
the agriculture market, the construction area exceeds
20,000sq.mtrs which require EC, under the Notification
mentioned above.
14. For sake of argument, even if the issue is required
to be considered, the very purpose of Notification dated
22nd December, 2014, whereby earlier Notification was
amended ought to be considered. A copy of amended
Notification is placed on record (Annexure “B”). The Item
No.8, relating to building/construction project and entries
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 16 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
relating thereto specified thereunder following items, sub-
items and entries have been substituted.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
“8 Building or Construction projects or Area Development projects and Townships
8(a) Building and Construction projects
>20000sq.mtrs and < 1.50,000 sq.mtrs of built up area
The term “built up area” for the purpose of this notification the built up or covered area on all floors put together, including its basement and other service areas, which are proposed in the building or construction projects Note1.- The projects or activities shall not include industrial, but such buildings shall ensure substantial environmental management, solid and liquid waste management, rain water harvesting and may use recycled materials such as fly ash bricks. Note 2.- “General Conditions” shall not apply.
8 Townships and Area Development Projects
Covering an area of > 50ha and or built up area > 1,50,000sq mtrs
A project of Township and Area Development Projects covered under this item shall require an Environment Assessment report and be appraised as Category ‘B1’ Project. Note.- “General Conditions” shall not apply.
15. Considering entry 8(a), as amended, it is manifest
that such project must be the project related to “buildings
and construction”. The project in question is not a building
and construction project as such. The present project is
related to market activities pertaining to sale of
agricultural produce brought by the agriculturists/farmers
for sale through the agents/traders at a common place,
under special provisions of an enactment called ‘the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marking (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1963’. This enactment is the special
Act, which came into force much prior to the Regulations
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 17 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
of 1986 and deals with particular subject, namely;
agricultural produce and the transactions, relating
thereto. Entry 8(b) also is irrelevant in respect of present
project, because it deals with the projects and township
and area development. In the present case, the project is
not of development of township or development of area.
Obviously, the project of APMC i.e. Respondent No.1, does
not fall under either of category, nor because of the fact
that certain temporary sheds are permitted to be erected
during season of crops for projection of yield and benefit of
the agriculturists/farmers, who would likely to suffer loss,
if such protection is unavailable. Needless to say, the
objection raised by the Applicant in this context, is without
substance and stands rejected. Issue No.1, is, therefore,
answered in the Negative.
Re: Issue (ii) :
16. The Applicant supported his case by affidavit.
There are numerous photographs at page 74, which go to
show that a large number of temporary sheds are erected
in the market yard by Respondent No.1. So also, untreated
wastewater, is drifted towards agricultural lands of the
Applicant from the market yard. There is a drain. The work
of excavation by using JCB Machine is going on near the
wall of market yard, and underground big hole is wrongly
created. Affidavit of Mr. Ankush Fulse, the Regional Officer
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 18 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
of MPCB, goes to show that water of well of the Applicant,
was found contaminated due to discharge of waste
effluents by Respondent by Respondent Nos.1 to 3. As
stated before, the results of samples collected by MPCB,
would clearly show that COD percentage in well water of
the Applicant exceeded permissible limit and, therefore, it
can be definitely stated that water of his well is
contaminated. Respondent No.1 allegedly draw water from
‘Kadva’ River and stores same in the tanks of the area of
market yard. The storm water runs through the water
drain.
17. The visit of MPCB, Regional Officer dated
21.4.2014, revealed that there are twenty five (25)
Bathrooms in the market yard, which were found closed.
There was one ‘Sulabh Shauchalay’ (Toilet), one STP of 150
MLD capacity, which was found in operation. The APMC
(Respondent No.1), was using treated wastewater partly
within the area for gardening.
18. Perusal of the record would show that toilet
facilities are disproportionately made available to the
farmers, who visit the market yard. So also, there are no
adequate numbers of capable STPs. The capacity of STPs,
are totally inadequate to deal with sewage and waste
management, including the waste caused on account of
loss of vegetables/fruits, which are rotten, un-useful and
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 19 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
thrown away because of their staleness, unworthy and
unusefulness for consumption.
19. At this juncture, it may be noted that activity of
temporary shed required to be erected during rainy season,
for the purpose of auctioning the vegetables/fruits, is
permissible, as per communication dated 1.9.2014, issued
by the Chief Manager, in accordance with the authority
under Regulation 12(1) under the byelaws of APMC Rules.
However, it does not mention that such temporary sheds
can be erected for period beyond rainy seasonal period.
Obviously, the stand of Respondent No.1, that such
temporary sheds can be erected during entire period of
year, is without substance. It is only permissible during
rainy season, in order to avoid loss of agricultural
produce/fruits brought for the purpose of auctioning.
Secondly, if at all the shops are to be let out, then there is
no embargo to grant licences. In case, unauthorized use of
land is found to be made by any licensee of the shop, Gala,
shed, plot or any other premises allotted or leased for sale
and purchase of agricultural produce or for other
purposes, directly or indirectly connected with the sale and
purchase of agricultural produce, is not used for the
purpose for which allotment was made or misused or
where encroachment is made on the land of market
committee, the Market Committee has power to evict such
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 20 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
encroacher under Section 32 (E) of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marking (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1963. The Market Committee cannot take
shelter under the guise that such temporary sheds are
erected by the agents or traders and not by the licencess
Market Committee (Respondent No.1). The sewage caused
due to large number of agriculturists, who visit the market
yard for the purpose of sale of their vegetables/fruits, is
natural source of sewage generation. It is manifest that
MSW and sewage created due to large number of visitors
to the market yard during the relevant period of peak
season ought to be duly taken care of by Respondent No.1.
We mean to say that Respondent No.1 is duty bound to
provide adequate number of sewage tanks in order to
remove the sewage, effluent and treat the MSW, caused at
the site during peak period of sale.
20. Ordinarily, the parameters should have been
either by generation of sewage and solid waste having
regard to number of visitors to the market yard and
requirement of STPs to deal with the problem. However, we
find that since beginning, MPCB has tried to support the
Respondent No.1 and put the real issues under the carpet.
Still, however, affidavit of Sabhapati of APMC, makes it
clear that as per National Building Code (NBC), for 100
persons one Septic tank is required and at least twenty five
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 21 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
(25) Toilets are required. Considering this parameter,
having regard to the number of persons, who are required
to work and stay in the premises of APMC, sufficient toilets
and urinals as well as adequate number of STPs must be
provided by the Respondent No.1. It is necessary for the
Respondent No.1 to provide such arrangement within a
short span to avoid further pollution which has been
spread over. The Respondent No.1 has filed another
affidavit on 3rd March, 2015, wherein the Respondent No.1
submits that both the STPs are now operational and
further a proposal to construct a new solid waste treatment
facility is approved by the Respondent No.1- Board and the
approval of concerned Govt. department is expected soon
for start of the work. Though certain progress of sewage
treatment, particularly, operation of both STPs is observed
during pendency of the matter, we are of the opinion that
MPCB needs to conduct a special audit to assess effluent
generation, STP operations, effluent disposal arrangement,
particularly land and also distribution of said work. The
earlier photographs showing drinking water tanks used for
treated effluent disposal speaks a lot. The Respondent
No.1, has given a detailed tabular statement, showing
sewage management, including available infrastructure.
However, this infrastructure seems to be inadequate,
considering large number of people visiting the complex.
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 22 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
Secondly, though the sewage generation is pegged at
shown 1,41,000 Ld/D, provisions are only of two STPs
with 150 m3 capacity, which itself indicates that the
Respondent No.1, is anticipating more wastewater than the
projected quantity. The Regulatory authority i.e. MPCB has
failed to assess the effluent generation load or even to verify
the data of water used to arrive at some estimation of
pollution load. Considering these aspects, we deem it
proper to answer issue No.(ii) in the Affirmative.
Re: Issue (iii) & (iv) :
21. As stated before, the affidavit of Mr.Ankush Fulse,
supports the case of Applicant to the extent that water of
his well is contaminated due to drifting of untreated
effluent of uncontrolled and untreated effluent mixed with
water through drainage of Respondent No.1. This fact is
very much clear from the photographs filed by the
Applicant at P-75 to 78. It is an admitted fact that the
agricultural land of the Applicant is abutting the land of
Respondent No.1. The Reports of samples analyzed by
MPCB, indicate excessive COD in the samples of well water
situated in the land of the Applicant. All these facts
corroborate the averments of the Applicant. The corrallary
of such proof given by him is that his land must have
suffered adverse impact of environmental damage because
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 23 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
of acts of the Respondent No.1. He is, therefore, entitled to
compensation of Rs.5Lakhs from Respondent No.1.
22. Another important contention of the Applicant is
that the present activity of the Respondent No.1 shall be
regulated by MPCB, though consent management, under
the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
MPCB on the other hand, submits that as the built up area
of this project is less than 20,000sq.m, it is not covered
under the consent management. However, no such policy
decision or any nexus of built-up area visa-a-visa water
pollution load/source, as envisaged under Ss. 25 and 26
of the Water Act, has been placed on record by the MPCB.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that as per
provisions of the Water Act, source of water pollution and
pollution load are the only relevant criterias for regulating
activity, and the built up area cannot be a criteria to
regulate the same. Considering the provision of Ss. 25/26,
we find merit in such an argument of leaned Counsel of
the Applicant. It is necessary for MPCB in “stricto senso” to
adhere to the provisions of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Water Act
while regulating water polluting sources and activities.
23. It is argued on behalf of Respondent No.1 that all
the arrangements of STPs and Toilets etc. including
number of closed drainage will be done as per direction of
this Tribunal within time frame, but that there is no
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 24 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
intentional error committed by Respondent No.1. We
would like to state that directions by this Tribunal are
required to be given by following the ‘Precautionary
Principle’ under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010, so as to protect environment in the area so that
no such continuity of wrong should reoccur.
24. Under these circumstances, the Application is
partly allowed in the following manner;
i) The Respondent No.1, shall pay compensation of
Rs.five (5) lakhs to the Applicant for deterioration
of quality of his well water and remediation thereof.
ii) The Respondent No.1, shall provide sufficient
number of Toilets/Urinals at an appropriate
locations for men and women, to ensure that there
is no open defecation or urinals.
iii) The Respondent No.1, shall operate the STPs
effectively and continuously and the treated
effluent shall not be discharged outside the
premises.
iv) MPCB shall take a decision regulating activities of
the Respondent No.1, in view of effluent generation
load in next two (2) months.
v) MPCB shall conduct environmental audit of the
Respondent No.1’s activities, as mentioned above
paras and issue suitable directions, in next two (2)
(J) Application No.38 of 2014 25 of 25 MA No.5 of 2015.
months, in case of any shortfall or shortcomings to
improve the same in a time bound manner, within
three (3) months from date of issuance of such
directions.
vi) The Respondent No1, shall provide solid waste
management and disposal plant within next three
(3) months.
vii) MPCB shall ensure compliance of above the
directions.
..………………………………………, JM (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar)
….……………………………………, EM (Dr.Ajay A. Deshpande)
Date: March 18th, 2015
khk